The court pointed out the formalism of the officials in the dispute with the large family from Tuapse.

THIS MATERIAL (INFORMATION) WAS PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED BY A FOREIGN AGENT LLC "MEMO", OR RELATES TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FOREIGN AGENT LLC "MEMO".

The cassation court, siding with the large family that challenged the refusal of Tuapse officials to provide their daughter with food, pointed out in its reasoned decision the formal approach of the lower courts and the violation of the family's rights to judicial protection.

As reported by "Caucasian Knot", on May 6, the Tuapse District Court refused to satisfy the claim of the large family of Tatyana Pimenova and Sergey Kartashov, demanding to provide their daughter with baby food. The court referred to the fact that by the time the case was considered, the girl had already reached the age of one year and four months and did not belong to the category of children under six months, who are provided with such food. On August 5, Pimenova and Kartashov filed a cassation appeal with the Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction and an appeal to the Attorney General. The cassation court overturned the decisions of the courts that refused to oblige the officials to provide food.

On October 18, Tatyana Pimenova and Sergey Kartashov received a reasoned determination from the Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction by mail. According to the document, the judicial panel considered Pimenova's cassation appeal on September 22, 2026, and the reasoned part of the decision was prepared on September 30, 2026.

From the text of the decision, it follows that Pimenova appealed to the court against the State Budgetary Institution of the Krasnodar Territory "Social Protection Administration in the Tuapse District" demanding to recognize the inaction of the officials who did not provide food for January, May, and June 2025 as illegal and to oblige the social protection authority to issue the debt.

The Tuapse District Court in April and the Krasnodar Regional Court in July denied the plaintiff, referring to the fact that at the time of the case consideration, the child had already reached the age of 1 year and 4 months and no longer needed specialized food for children under six months.

However, the cassation court found these conclusions unlawful. "When making a decision, the courts should not proceed from a formal approach to resolving the plaintiff's claims and should take into account all the factual circumstances of the case, including the social status of the applicant, the timeliness of inter-agency interaction between the defendant and the pension authority," the reasoned determination of the cassation instance states.

The court also reminded of the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: "When considering cases, the court should not be limited to establishing formal conditions for the application of the norm. Otherwise, it would lead to a significant infringement of the right to judicial protection."

In addition, the judicial panel pointed out that the lower instances ignored paragraph 19.1 of the Government of the Russian Federation Resolution No. 1961, according to which, upon the birth of a subsequent child, the allowance should be assigned in a non-application manner through the system of inter-agency electronic interaction. "In light of the above, it is not normatively provided to impose on the plaintiff the obligation to apply with the relevant application to the competent authority," the cassation court's determination emphasizes.

The cassation instance also recorded procedural violations: the district court, having accepted the clarification of the claims, considered the claim in its original form in its decision and did not actually resolve the clarified claims of Pimenova. "The circumstances presented indicate a formal approach of the lower courts to the consideration of this case, which involved a dispute of socially significant nature and related to the realization of parents' rights to ensure baby food, which led to a violation of the objectives and meaning of civil proceedings... and their right to fair and competent judicial protection," the panel of the Fourth Cassation Court summarized.

Despite the fair reasoned decision of the cassation court, the reconsideration of the case in the first instance court is again being delayed, the child's parents told the correspondent of "Caucasian Knot". "We received the reasoned determination only on October 18 by mail, although the document was drawn up back on September 30, and the decision itself was announced on September 22. Almost a month has passed since the cassation court's decision was made, but the case in the Tuapse District Court has still not been scheduled for a new hearing. The bureaucratic system continues to drag out time," Tatyana Pimenova commented on the situation.

Sergey Kartashov expressed his attitude towards the situation with irony. "Judging by the pace of work of the Tuapse officials and the court, the missing cans of food will apparently be issued to us only when our daughter gives us grandchildren," he jokes.

He wonders what to do for those who cannot afford to buy specialized food. "It's good that we were able to provide for our child and buy everything he needs ourselves, but there are families where such an opportunity simply does not exist, and the child cannot wait while officials sort out their inter-agency communication problems with each other," Kartashov added. Earlier, Tatyana Pimenova reported that due to delays in issuing food, the family was forced to go into debt.

"We are looking forward to when the Tuapse court, whose decision was overturned by the higher instance, will finally deign to reconsider its own decision taking into account the recommendations of the higher court," Pimenova summarized.